Investment managers, when forming their first private fund, can claim exemption for the fund from registration as an investment company (pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)of the Investment Company Act of 1940) if the fund (1) has no more than 100 investors; and (2) is not sold in a public offering. However, in many situations as investor demand increases - threatening to surpass the 100 investor limit - the investment manager decides to initiate a secondary private fund, believing it too will be exempt from registration. The result is that the manager is managing 2 identical funds with 160 investments.
The problem with operating two identical funds lies in the concept of integration, or treating two or more like funds as one and counting the aggregate number of investors to determine whether they exceed 100. If the manager launches a similar type of fund, ( e.g.,a second global macro fund) after the number of investors in the first fund reaches 100 and is closed, the SEC may, under certain circumstances, treat both funds as one 3(c)(1) fund. Consequently, neither fund will comply with section 3(c)(1). Here are some considerations to as to whether integration of a fund is appropriate or if indeed a separate fund should be established.
- Would a reasonable purchaser view an interest in one offering as not materially different from another?
- Are the offerings materially different?
- Are the two offerings intended for two different groups of investors?
- Investment funds can differ in structure and operation for legitimate business reasons, therefore investment in such funds can be materially different even where the investment objections are similar ( See Shoreline Fund No-Action Letter)
It is important to be aware of these provisions when a fund that is relying upon the section 3(c)(1) exemption begins to grow and change. If you would like to read more on this topic, click here.
For further information on this, or other related topics, please contact us at email@example.com or (619) 298-2880.
Add a comment
- New SEC Climate Change and ESG Task Force to Enhance Investor Protection by Red Flagging Examples of Corporate Greenwashing
- What Investment Advisers Must do to Qualify for the DOL’s Prohibited Transaction Exemption for IRA Rollovers
- SEC Division of Examinations Cites Enhanced Focus on Business Continuity Processes, Protection of Retail Investors and ESG-Related Risks Among its 2021 Priorities
- FINRA Report Suggests Growing Need for Enhanced Risk Management in Cybersecurity and Outside Business Activities
- Deadline Approaching: Considerations for Your Form ADV
- Leveraging JLG's Latest Service: Real Estate
- Safeguarding Your Firm Against Fraudulent or Improper Recognition of Revenue
- New Advisers Act Advertising Rule to Undergo Further Review
- Investors, Advisers Must be Mindful to Comply with New U.S. Ban on Estimated $1 Trillion of Chinese Securities
- Your First Meeting on the SEC’s New Investment Adviser Marketing Rule Should Address These Topics
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Investment Advisers
- Regulatory Examinations
- Policies and Procedures
- Social Media Marketing
- Due Diligence
- Transition Services
- California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
- Aging Clients
- Advisers Act
- Virtual Currency
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Ponzi Scheme
- Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE)
- Broker Protocol
- Securities Law
- Form U5
- Private Equity
- Private Funds
- Hedge Funds
- Regulation Best Interest
- Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
- Government Shutdown
- Risk Alert
- Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)
- Investment Company Act
- Rule 6c
- Wells Fargo